City Bans Smoking In Publicly Subsidized Housing

[BrassFusion]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...toryId=10169174

The city of Helena, Mont., is following a small but growing trend. The city's officials have banned smoking in public housing complexes.

One city commissioner says he doesn't think low-income residents should spend money on cigarettes.

Others worry about the negative effects of second-hand smoke.

I agree that the welfare state doesn't necessarily have the same right to waste money on luxuries, especially harmful ones, but I worry that this may be a slippery slope to a ban on smoking in apartments and the like.

Thoughts?

[Der Nister]

Well I can tell you this, hard core anti smokers will say there is nothing wrong with this decision because it is something that is "saving lives" - but I will not agree with that argument.

I will also say, the government has no place to tell anyone what they can or can not do (as long as it is a legal act, for sake of discussion) and since buying and smoking tobacco products is legal then in private home, whether subsidized by tax dollars or not, should not be banned.

And this is the slippery slope that should be feared and fought against.

I just feel it's total bullshit that a few people think they have the right to save us from ourselves.

This is my offer to the do gooders out there - you wanna stop others from doing things you don't agree with? Then start providing a roof over their heads and then you can have a say in others lives - until then - stop imposing your life style choices on the rest of the nation.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

Its possible anything even remotely "public" could get such treatment. Many cities already ban smoking almost everywhere except inside your own home.

Its the natural extension of Freedom Vs. Safety that has been a concern since time immemorial , and was specifically a concern for many in the united states basically since before the founding. Slowly we give have become more and more assuming everything should be uber-safe and are willing to give up our freedom (and freedom of others) to achieve it.

When something bad happens or is found out about, the first thing that everyone cries is "government save us!!" and they do what they know how to do best... point out a lack of power, and take that power away from the governed and give it to the governing. It works, but it also sets us up for a society very different than what we have come to expect.

[BrassFusion]

This is my offer to the do gooders out there - you wanna stop others from doing things you don't agree with? Then start providing a roof over their heads and then you can have a say in others lives - until then - stop imposing your life style choices on the rest of the nation.

that's the point... it's government subsidized housing... and of course the law isn't that the people can't buy or smoke cigarettes, it's just they will no longer be allowed to do it on those properties.

[Dubh Aingeal]

I might be splitting hairs here but its not a on its a in. Which means (by my reading) you could smoke right up to the front door, or out on the porch. Just can't do it inside.

[BrassFusion]

that's what i thought too, till i listened to the story. it goes for outside as well as inside

[Der Nister]

One city commissioner says he doesn't think low-income residents should spend money on cigarettes.

Now is the reason they are banning smoking because it's not healthy? Because if that's the case the they need to ban other things that are not healthy because of course, we need to be saved from ourselves.

~OR~

If the reason they are banning this is because these people are poor and they have no right to decide what they purchase because they depend on tax payers money to help them live then let's add to the list.

*wonders if government is also going to ban sex outside of marriage, fast food, alcohol consumption and video rentals (to name a few) as banned for these subsidized home dwellers.*

Or maybe, just maybe - this countries government needs to butt out of our everyday lives!!

[BrassFusion]

they AREN'T everyday lives... they're welfare lives that depend on tax dollars... i wouldn't have a huge problem if they didn't allow drinking on those properties, either. it would be impossible for them to ban fast food consumption and fornication, though, cuz that wouldn't necessarily have to happen on the property.

[Der Nister]

they AREN'T everyday lives... they're welfare lives that depend on tax dollars... i wouldn't have a huge problem if they didn't allow drinking on those properties, either. it would be impossible for them to ban fast food consumption and fornication, though, cuz that wouldn't necessarily have to happen on the property.

Smoking doesn't have to take place on the property so they aren't stopping them from doing this so please tell me what's the point of doing a ban?

And why should we - the people - allow government officials the 'power' to impose their will on citizens. Shouldn't it be the other way around since they are using our tax dollars.

Shouldn't they be held to higher standards ( the u.s. government) and use our money more wisely?

I understand how people can get angry that there are those that abuse our money but how is this going to make a positive difference? Or any difference at all?

[Troy Spiral (13)]

Its the squeaky wheels that get the oil. The wheels that squeak health risks of smoking are louder than the ones that squeak for personal freedom.

[sass_in_the_pants]

Interesting.

Many hotels have outright banned smoking within their rooms, as have some apartment buildings. It saves them insurance costs, cleanup costs, and reduces the risk of fire to their residents. Rules are set by the property owner (in this case, the government), not the residents. Though I disagree with their reasoning behind banning smoking in public housing, they are completely within THEIR rights to do so.

[BrassFusion]

Smoking doesn't have to take place on the property so they aren't stopping them from doing this so please tell me what's the point of doing a ban?

the point of a ban like this is that it strongly discourages smoking. it'd be hell on your typical smoker to have to leave the apartment (especially in a montana winter) every time they wanted a smoke. the government definitely doesn't have the right to prevent them from smoking entirely, but the owners of the building do have the right to forbid the residents to smoke. in a free market, the tenants can seek another apartment to rent where there isn't a rule like that, or buy a house of their own.

And why should we - the people - allow government officials the 'power' to impose their will on citizens. Shouldn't it be the other way around since they are using our tax dollars.

as constituents, we are the government. it's within our rights to protest decisions like this by voting for other people, running for office ourself, challenging rulings in courts, etc. the officials in this case were either directly or indirectly put in office by the montana taxpayers who are funding the public housing projects.

Shouldn't they be held to higher standards ( the u.s. government) and use our money more wisely?

I understand how people can get angry that there are those that abuse our money but how is this going to make a positive difference? Or any difference at all?

i feel this is a very wise use of money. it's like an investment that has an initial cost of next to nothing. the tenants who can't afford to live anywhere else will have little choice but to give up smoking. that'll help them save their own money, it'll save money for the apartment in cleanup costs, it'll save health insurance money and reduce premiums (ok this is big picture stuff, but forgive me)...

the tenants who can't live with the new rule will have to find non-subsidized housing. that would cost the government less money also.

edit: i almost forgot. my personal priorities do put liberty before money, but they also put personal responsibility before liberty. if you can't even afford to live on your own property, or by proxy (through a regular apartment), you can't really demand the right to do ANYTHING.... you're basically a ward of the state at that point.

[Head Wreck]

MUAH HA HA HA HA soon you will all be under british law

[Dubh Aingeal]

it'd be hell on your typical smoker to have to leave the apartment (especially in a montana winter) every time they wanted a smoke.

Its not hell on a smoker (might be for you or in a montana winter) cause thats exactly what I did when I smoked regardless of the weather. I have never smoked within my residence (apt, house, what ever). Anyone who came over had to follow the same rule. You smoked, you went outside.

[BrassFusion]

outside, and off the property.

[torn asunder]

I will also say, the government has no place to tell anyone what they can or can not do (as long as it is a legal act, for sake of discussion) and since buying and smoking tobacco products is legal then in private home, whether subsidized by tax dollars or not, should not be banned.

if you're so poor you can't afford to pay for your own housing & have to have gov't subsidies to have a place to live, you shouldn't be able to afford/buy cigarrettes. if you can, you shouldn't be living in gov't subsidized housing. pay your own way, b*tches!!

[Hellion]

This country gets worse and worse every year,Australia here I come!!

[Der Nister]

if you're so poor you can't afford to pay for your own housing & have to have gov't subsidies to have a place to live, you shouldn't be able to afford/buy cigarrettes. if you can, you shouldn't be living in gov't subsidized housing. pay your own way, b*tches!!

Well it isn't I that needs this but regardless. This is the slippery slope - it's amazing how there are those that are willing to usher in the type of government that our founding fathers fought to break away from.

It amazes me that the people that want smoking banned have no issues with people getting drunk or themselves getting drunk and possibly committing DUI's. I mean - you talk about how dangerous second hand smoke is - how crazy are you?

How many cases can you find where someone smoked a cigarette and later that night - someone died from the second hand smoke?

On the other hand - I had a family member who was killed at the age of 21 from a drunk driver. I think alcohol consumption/abuse is far more deadly and immediate than smoking.

But yea ok - whatever.

[torn asunder]

Well it isn't I that needs this but regardless. This is the slippery slope - it's amazing how there are those that are willing to usher in the type of government that our founding fathers fought to break away from.

It amazes me that the people that want smoking banned have no issues with people getting drunk or themselves getting drunk and possibly committing DUI's. I mean - you talk about how dangerous second hand smoke is - how crazy are you?

How many cases can you find where someone smoked a cigarette and later that night - someone died from the second hand smoke?

On the other hand - I had a family member who was killed at the age of 21 from a drunk driver. I think alcohol consumption/abuse is far more deadly and immediate than smoking.

But yea ok - whatever.

thing is, the cities can ban smoking in public places/restaurants/gov't buildings/etc... and gov't subsidized housing is, in essence, a "gov't" building. i think they have every right to do it, since they're paying for the place...

[BrassFusion]

i don't think anyone here wants a general ban on smoking. but i personally don't want to pay for housing and food for people who are wasting money on cigarettes. i would support this law if they effected it in our state.

[AstralCrux]

I'm usually all for rights and will defend a person's rights regardless of whether it's a bright idea or not, but I agree with this. Something needs to motivate people from lower incomes to change their situation. Banning smoking probably won't do much and I imagine this is to prevent "illegal smoking" more than anything.

However, I don't think subsidized housing is a good motivational factor. I only agree with it for people who are disabled and cannot work (or have very limited working conditions).

We need to set up hostle type situations where families are assigned a room for sleeping/storage of items, but they have to deal with communal showers/toilets. That is a motivational factor to make more friggin money and get a NICE place to live than to take away some cigarettes. Know what? It'll cut out on making babies, cause you have to share the sleeping space with your kids. This meathod would cost taxpayers a hell of a lot less in general than policing smokers.

This in no way means I don't support other public support systems such as Unemployment- that is a brilliant idea to combat unexpected income drops. That program however has time restrictions- restrictions are a good thing if they are there to motivate.

*My opinions are just that. My childhood involved support programs that helped my mom, as a single parent go to college (mostly grade based scholarships) and have the ability to feed her kids (government and church donations) so that she could improve her situation. I've watched the immigrants in my neigborhood (South West D) struggle to improve their situations and I just wanna slap Americans sometimes when they have the same oppertunity to do something and don't get off their asses. The government doesn't owe anything more than basic public works and safety. I honestly don't expect them to pay my bills and I sure as hell don't want them paying for anyone on Jerry Springer.*

[AstralCrux]

Hotels are doing smoking bans because there is a call for it. I work for one. People don't even want to be near the smoking rooms. So far, I'm only aware that Marriott as an entire chain has banned smoking, but Comfort Suites- Not the whole Choice chain- has also.

My hotel has to replace curtain sheers currently from a smoking accident and in the past they have billed guests for damn near setting the bed on fire- I'm talking big hole in bed here! Not to mention the fit guests pitch if they smell someone smoking pot!

Odds are many other hotels will be following suit.

[BrassFusion]

very good words brandy